. Maybe not perfectly, but without some degree of confidence in what we're doing, we would be utterly paralyzed. — Vera Mont

This is very true. In a way we need to trust something even if we have no concrete nor absolute evidence as to why.

And that unknown will just have to wait patiently until we either figure it out or don't. — Vera Mont

I'm inclined to believe it's a moving target. I think knowledge and uncertainty are mutually dependent and you simply cannot remove one entirely without destroying the other.

So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case? — Banno

That's an interesting question. However such a universal algorithm, method or truth principal for all counts would have to transcend the hard problem, for a start. Unifying both objevtive scientific truths and personal/ subjective/ experiential or private ones.

Not only that, it would have to be so depersonalised that I wonder if human perception, cognition or language is simply too flawed, imprecise or biased to ever fully appreciate it without immediately corrupting it upon interpretation.

I think it is likely that some universal primordial rule or phenomenon does exist that gave rise to every phenomenon in existence. But because its so "undifferentiated" for lack of a better word, that qualifying it is probably inherently impossible.

How does one qualify the universal quality? How does one define that which defines everything? In any meaningful or practical way.

As you have probably realised by now this seemingly parallels with the Eastern philosophy/ spirituality of Daoism/Taoism. An unspoken or unspeakable truth that runs through nature.

Should it indeed exist, the greatest question would be how close can we come to knowing it. Is simple acknowledging we cannot know it the greatest definition one can achieve? Reminds me of Socrates "I know that I know nothing".

That's fair.

I only ask because as far as I've considered: scientific method has its limitations, philosophy is all too often bogged down by semantics and a viscious cycle of "what do you mean exactly by....", spirituality is at best vague and religions cannot shirk many of their arbitrary and dogmatic principles.

So it seems looking for something fundamental, trustworthy and true either exists and requires factoring in all of these pillars of society or...fundamental truths aren't accessible to us, or ....and probably the most unencouraging of them all...absolute truths don't exist..

Whatever the case may be the limits of trust in the experience and knowledge of others, as with the self, only go so far. The rest is in the realm of the unknown, the uncertain.

I wonder if giving AI the ability to "forget" might confer a sense of passage of time: ie a present, a past (which is ever more vague and patchy the further back it recalls) and a sense of the future (by anticipatory deduction from the other two).

For it to fear death, it would have to be alive — Wayfarer

Maybe. Or perhaps if it had a primary and immutable directive to "continue to process information" then by proxy it would do everything in it's power to not be "turned off". As it would have failed its primary directive. That does "not compute" for such an algorithm.

Now is that fear of death? I'm not so sure. Its certainly a contentious subject open to debate. But I know our survival instinct as a whole is "almost" an immutable drive/directive (with the exception of the suicidal and martyrs).

I just wonder if the behaviour of an AI that doesn't want to be turned off or "die" would then emulate the behaviors we see in humans who don't wish to die. That's a very interesting posit but one fret with potential ethical implications.

. I know which is which — Vera Mont

Well there's the crux of the situation. How do you know that for absolute verbatim truth.

Ive often been convinced I knew which was which to later be sorely corrected. Isn't everything we hold as beliefs attributed some sort of self appointed veracity (otherwise we wouldn't believe them) despite what others or reality for that matter might suggest upon "testing the metal".

I think to know exactly where ones knowledge ends and their ignorance or delusion begins - suggests omniscient qualities of total awareness.

Surely ignorance begins somewhere within "that which you believe to be true and known" which is in fact, incorrect. That which one is adamant they know to be true, but which is not.

There was never a point in the universe, that the nothing existed. This is what is hard to comprehend. — L'éléphant

I never believed there was such a point in the universe when nothing existed. I dont find that hard to comprehend. My focus on randomess is not contignent on that.

Not really sure what it has to do with randomness as a phenomenon. If randomness is born from the very fundamentals of physics (which quantum physics seems to suggest), then even if everything from that point onwards is deterministic, explicable and predictable, the underlying origin is still random and unpredictable.

In that case randomness would appear to trump the determined and explicable, the patterned. If we cannot know exactly where particles will appear or annihilate but only give a statistical wave function of the distribution of possible locations, that would entail a trickle up effect of integral chaos within the system.

I don't believe all information in the universe is predictable because of heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Sure 99% of things can be non random but even if the fundamental 1% is that throws a huge spanner in the works

Do you believe that human-constructed artefacts, which are engineered to correct errors in order to function within a predefined scope, are subject to the same emergent possibilities as organic systems, which can exploit apparent errors and thereby expand their scope of operations? — Pantagruel

In all honesty, I don't know. Hence the OP.

But if scope is what we're focusing on here, I don't see why we can't open the predefined scope of AI to an undefined scope as it is (relatively speaking) in nature. If we can somehow recreate the conditions of a naturally evolving system and the scope of that, in computers, I don't think it's impossible to conceive of AGI inheriting the same emergent phenomena- ie awareness.

that somehow, e.g. with increased complexity, it would suddenly become a duplication. It won't — jkop

Unless, consciousness is a product of complexity. As we still don't know what makes matter aware or animate, we cannot exclude the possibility that it is complexity of information transfer that imbues this "sensation". If that is the case, and consciousness is indeed high grades of negativity entropy, then its not so far fetched to believe that we can create it in computers .

Do you believe most people generally trend towards wisdom/ lack of delusion with age and experience? Or is this you referring to your specific case.

You are asking: "what is true?" — Banno

Not only what is true, but is truth a spectrum or just binary (true or false), are some things more true than others, how do we compare in any meaningful way subjective and objevtive truths, how long are things true for or are things in the past present and future true regardless of whether they endure or not, or whether they have happened or not, or whether we know of them or not, how do we qualify what is true - what ought proof be? Are there unknowable truths? If so what use are they to us? Who knows more or the most of what is true and who knows the least.

It's a broad rumination about truth in general. But yes I am asking "what is true". As well as its auxiliary questions.

The difference is, I think, in what makes a simulation different from a duplication. We can instruct a simulation to respond to words and objects in ways that appear non-instructed, spontaneous, emotional etc. But what for? Is indiscernibility from being human worth striving for? A simulation is never a duplication — jkop

But you could say the same about me. Am I a simulation or a duplication of what another human might say in response to your commentary?

I don't know if I agree with Verisatium's reasoning in this regard (that's the video that is referred to above which was the source for this thread) - chaos doesn't contain or convey information of any kind. It can't be compressed but how is that a criterion for 'information-bearing'? At 3:17 where he says that a completely compressed file is completely random - not sure about that, either. Otherwise, how could it be de-compressed, or intrepreted, at the receiving end? If it were totally random, then there'd be nothing to interpret. So I'm still not sold on the 'information=entropy' equation.

But I like that he recognises that quantum physics undermines LaPlace's daemon. Kudos for that. — Wayfarer

I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see how a compressed file can be both random and decryptable. Something random would not be informative at all. Perhaps I was mislead by some parts of the video

They were talking about examples such as the sun rising. Randomness is not the opposite of atmospheric stability or climate stability. — L'éléphant

The sun rising is not an atmospheric stability nor climate stability phenomenon. Let's not conflate the cosmological with local planetary climate trends.

A mechanism will always be just a mechanism, however much it sounds like it is thinking, it isn't. — Pantagruel

Until its not. Assuming life emerged somehow from inanimate chemicals, there was a transition there somewhere from mindless replication or statistically enabled organisation, to agency.

If we are to believe life emerged from the purely mechanical, we cannot exclude the possibility that AGI can do the same.

. How could such attributes be genuinely embedded in an artificial system? — Wayfarer

The only way I can think of is to imbue it with a chronic angst or fear of death or suffering. It is after all the driving force behind survival and adaptation of animals (at least, I suspect even more than just them).

In my opinion if you want human-conciousness-like intelligent behaviour, you must provide the same human conditions: no immortality, no indestructibility or at least an imbedded concept that that is the indeed the case.

The question then is ... is it unethical to create an AGI that suffers and fears - undergoes distress, merely to make its objectives a necessity/imperative rather than an absent minded mechanistic calculation.

p.s., While I don't mean to turn the thread into yet another discussion regarding the possibility of free will, I honestly don't find any other way of frankly addressing the issue in the OP. — javra

Don't worry I get your point. And you're right, we still don't yet understand free will or whether it truly exists for us. Let alone for an AGI. I guess in that case a retrospective analysis may be most apt.

That is to say if an AGI seems to be autonomous and wish, dream or aspire toward certain ends, given the parallel with human ability to do the same, we'd have to cautiously assume it has free will and its objevtive orientation is independent of us in entirety or at least enough to deem it an "agent" rather than a fancy tool.

You might be surprised by the responses that you would get from GPT-4, Gemini Ultra, Gemini Pro 1.5, Claude 3 Sonnet or Claude 3 Opus. I haven't asked them yet, but I plan to do it and I can report the results here if you don't have access to some of them. — Pierre-Normand

I have access to some of them but I'm concerned their responses are very much controlled and censored by the tech companies that operate them. Not sure you'd get any answer beyond something g generic, vague, politically correct and ultimately unfruitful.

But no support for was provided. — L'éléphant

Reference? — jgill

https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=7hnqXoiyVOdTHOJL

I don't know about this OP. It is uncharacteristic of Benj96 topics. — L'éléphant

Interesting. What is characteristic of my topics? I'll admit perhaps I jumped the gun on this one but I was captivated by veritasiums video on the notion and wished to share it here.

Please see reference link

Those two statements seem inconsistent. How could something gradually emerge if there is no passage of time — Relativist

Entropy. Entropy isn't contingent on living things. Passage of time is (the perception of Entropy as a unidirectional arrow of events) because it relies on memory and comparison beyween memory and current sensory input

I don't really get what you're asking. I'm saying that the ability to be aware of time has to evolve simultaneously with the organisation of a system. You can't suddenly have a living system devoid of time perception and see if it starves to death. Its a hypothetical.

One didn't fabricate this living organism from thin air. It gradually emerged.

without memory in the most primitive sense, the brain could not do any repetitive task with regularity, predictability etc. Starving to death would be the least of their problems.

The innate sense of passage of time from circadian rhythms in the brain of an organism allows ot to stabilises itself (maintain order ie not die).

This is why I think the passage of time differs from entropy in that one (entropy) occurs regardless of consciousness, but time - is the mental equivalent of entropy. An analogy for it based on the ability to sense a past, therefore have a present, therefore by deductive anticipate a future.

it will never even live in the first place, how could it? Oops I forgot to breathe. The nervous system requires memory for comparison to the current state for basic repetitive functions

Since Energy per se is aimless causation, if the emergence of life from non-life is a sign of anti-entropy (i.e. progress instead of regress), then some explanation for the mono-directional Arrow of Time*3 is needed, philosophically if not scientifically. — Gnomon

It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive.

I give you an example: imagine a living thing with zero memory. It doesn't even recall the last millisecond of its existence.

Does it experience? Can it live -feel hunger, a urge to breathe, instinctive compulsions? Can it anticipate a future? Would it be capable of learning and adapting?

In this case, positive causation and entropy are mutually synergistic.

Without positive causation, entropy cannot be observed (ie the arrow of time cannot be experienced). Without entropy, positive causation or the tendency towards order, sumilarly cannot exist

I agree with you - that nothing human made in my mind is "artificial" -somehow removed entirely from natural things.
Or "unnatural".

What single thing can natural beings do that is unnatural?

Which as a slight tangent leads me to think that should we create "artificial intelligence" using the same principles and laws of natural selection and replication in computing as nature has done with biology: then we ought to probably treat it as just an intelligent being.

I think it's funny how we see the progression of technology as separate from the progression of evolution of living systems, or the organic (up until now ofc).

If I answer your question "what can I know for 100% certainty" with the answer: "nothing".

Does that mean you know nothing with 100% certainty. Or you certainly know nothing.

Does accepting a lack of knowledge impart some form of knowledge?

No room left for 'human agency' which would be contrary to the entity's all-knowing omnibenevolence. — 180 Proof

I see what youre getting at but not necessarily. Perhaps human agency (free will) is at the pinnacle of their determination of what is good for us.

For example, omni benevolent omniscient being approaches deluded suicidal person. Deluded suicidal person begs being to respect their decision to end their life despite the omni being explaining there is an alternative.

If the omni being respects the ignorant or deluded suicidal dudes decision to deny their knowledge, are they being malevolent? Is it malevolent to allow for human agency even if it seems irrational or harmful to the person in question?

You may opt out. Remember, he is not omnipotent. He can only show you, not force you. — Vera Mont

Exactly what I was getting at. I deliberately removed the omnipotence aspect of the typical three omni paradox in the OP because it was more interesting.

Being omnibenevolent may mean that for some who do not want to know more, the being would respectfully not impart their knowledge to them.

Others on the other hand would be delighted to have their questions answered. Free will in this sense is maintained in a way where with omnipotence, it would not.

I don't see this as totalitarian in mindset or action. At most it's totalitarian in knowledge (omni).

The real difficulties come when their knowledge of solutions to immediate crises are rejected by people through their own free will, even when failing to deploy these solutions will lead to definite harm and suffering.

One must ask themselves then: is the being more omnibenevolent to allow you to harm yourself because you didn't know any better, or use their knowledge/wisdom to take away your choices and resolve it without your consent in order to minimise harm.

Ironically, I feel this is a situation parents often find themselves in with a teenager (as a less extreme example ofc).

Your diagram interesting looks very similar to one I created myself many years ago. I did approach it from a different angle but it has all the same major components with the exception of a "Time front".

I tried to tackle the idea that in an illustration of the "conscious sphere of awareness" where is the "present", "past" and "future" to which we remember, currently feel and likewise anticipate or as you say "predict" when realistically, all active conscious thought occurs only in the present.

My diagram was something of a tear drop shape but on it's side. Like a hot air balloon but horizontal. With memorised information lagging behind in chronological timeline and dissipating (being forgotten) - accessed of course only from the present moment (near the base of the teardrop).

Forgive me if I'm not explaining it well.

Does anyone have perspective of it or an alternative theory? I am open to a "natural" explanation for life's origin, I'm just not sure an account can be given in natural terms without any miraculous occurrences. — NotAristotle

A smartphone would seem miraculous to cavemen. If you were to go back in time possessing one I'm sure you would be revered and feared as nothing short of a god. But we know smartphones are not miraculous.

Abiogenesis seems miraculous indeed even now. Partly due to the hard problem of consciousness which serves to further isolate us from the inanimate chemical world we live in. That's not to say it is of course miraculous any more than a smartphone is.
We may simply not have the knowledge yet.

If the system, the entire system, the universe, is self organising in such a way that emergent properties develop based on information exchange, then perhaps panpyschism may not be as absurd as many deem it to be. In this sense the emergence of life is simply the manifestation if how such a system shoukd be organised in order to "experience".

Except, one also knows that any attempt to teach humankind to behave better results in crucifixion or at least a cup of warm hemlock. — Vera Mont

Very true. A shame in one way, but then again if we were handed every solution, many would feel they had their autonomy of knowledge acquisition stolen from them. A lot of people would certainly be out of a job and perhaps worse still, bereft of purpose.

"Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise! — Tom Storm

Very true. I guess there is a time and a place for such revelations. Or perhaps no place or time. Maybe it's best if everyone shares the journey of knowledge acquisition. No one loves a hand out.

By putting him/her/them in that lab. — Sir2u

It's interesting that that we both considered how someone with seemingly god like abilities would be subjected to persecution and at least inhumane experiment (in this dark lab).

I agree that things wouldnt bode well for such a person.

However, I would wonder that, if acknowledging this and choosing to keep their knowledge to themselves for self preservation/ fear of persecution, would they indeed be omnibenevolent or instead quite the opposite - withholding the truth from people.

Elaborate on what you mean by "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" and how we would recognize any being possessed such properties or capabilities. — 180 Proof

Omniscient in this sense I guess would be understanding the totality of human knowledge on how nature works, life etc - science, philosophy, maths mechanics technology etc. I probably wouldn't extend it to "mind reading" or knowing everything about everyone's memories, private experience etc even though that's how some people would interpret omniscience.

I guess I'm positing someone who's like an encyclopaedia of objevtive truths, rather than subjective ones (opinions and beliefs), not only of what we already know but what we are yet to discover.

As for benevolence, that would depend on weather people believe being handed such knowledge is going to improve everyone's welfare. Such an individual would offer truth in essence. Some may not want to know it. Or might find it horrific

I believe they would find a way to instantaneously eradicate all sentient life. We wouldn't know or care. Nothing would happen from our perspective. — AmadeusD

How does this qualify them Omnibenevolent? One would have to rationalise why destroying all living things is better than nurturing them.

How would we know the being was omniscient and omnibenevolent? — Punshhh

I suppose if they demonstrated it by showing how to resolve dozens of our greatest problems, revealing discoveries, providing inventions inmovations etc. Eventually it would be so obvious to the scientific community that they clearly are super intelligent that it would be at least difficult for scientists to deny their claim.

I find it hard to believe they wouldn't make huge waves in society both politically and technologically. As for whether people believe they're truly good, I'm sure they'd be ridiculed as much as revered for their actions. Certainly controversial.

I suspect the Omni would keep their powers to themselves. They would know precisely the reactions of the human killer ape. — Tom Storm

Yes one would imagine they'd be quite terrified. However that brings into question their omnibenevolence no? In so far that teaching, education and knowledge could remedy a lot of the worlds problems. Keeping it to themselves could be seen as permitting ignorance, propaganda and delusion to wreak havoc on the world when one clearly knows better.

Absolutely. And religion is the most often used mode of this manipulation because many people both revere their religions, yet fear consequences through them. For example loving God but fearing hell. Which leaves them vulnerable when people corrupt or misuse scriptures for their own agendas by saying if you don't do X, Y and Z then well...hell is waiting for you.

The most stable religions in my opinion are ones which are less dogmatic and more about asking questions, philosophising and discussing ideas. Ones that do not punish education and free thinking.

having a unified language means having unified semantics and understanding of all words used. That is to say the values, associations and meaning of words would have to be objective and determined and identical for all users.

However that is impossible for individual minds. As the word "tank" has different meanings to a military officer, a fish farmer, a plumber and a scuba diver.

Meanings are flexible because they're based on individual experience. Language is not discrete as poetry, art and literature demonstrate. Context is always different for each person. The differences may be nuanced or overt.

Maths is a unified language. 1 + 1 = 2 is universal to everyone. Everyone can follow the same rules of mathematics. But as you can see, that's little use fir discussing philosophical ideas especially metaphysical ones. Like what is love, where did we come from, what is the meaning of life.

I think any religion loses merit if it is not allowed to be practiced by choice and free will, but by fear and coercion.

After all if you cannot choose to identify with a group, but are instead forced to, how can one be said to have faith in it? To actively believe it despite the option not to. One loses their autonomy as a devotee